Westmoreland County Wetlands Board approves five shoreline permits, orders 10-day wait before work

The Westmoreland County Wetlands Board on the meeting approved five shoreline permit applications for Colonial Beach and surrounding areas, granting three-year permits for riprap revetments and like-for-like bulkhead repairs.

The board considered Case 1507 (Sean and Robin McElroy), Case 1509 (James and Tara Patson), Case 1510 (David and Kristen Smith), Case 1511 (Linte Properties / Everett Welsh) and Case 1512 (James and Sylvia Barnes). Agents from Bayshore Design described each project’s scope — typically refurbishing riprap revetments, repairing or replacing timber bulkheads in the same alignment, and placing armor stone and filter fabric to stabilize eroding banks. The board voted to approve each application after presentations and brief questions; the recorded roll calls show Miss Harmon, Chairman Johnson and Miss Bergeron voting in the affirmative on each item.

Why it matters: The projects involve shoreline stabilization in areas with medium-to-high wave fetch and include reported encroachments into non-vegetated wetlands and subaqueous bottom. Approvals allow property owners to proceed, subject to permitting steps and appeal windows that delay construction start dates.

Case summaries and key details

Case 1507: Applicants Sean and Robin McElroy, agent Craig Palovinski of Bayshore Design, proposed to refurbish 75 feet of riprap revetment and replace a 70-foot timber bulkhead in the same alignment at Avalon Drive, Colonial Beach. Palovinski said the work would “not have any further encroachment channel work than what’s there now” and described drainage improvements and new toe material to stop slumping. A board member asked whether the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) had reviewed the case; an agency official responded, “We did not send this particular case to VIMS,” and noted VIMS historically recommends living-shoreline components when feasible. The board approved Case 1507 with a three-year permit; the chair reminded applicants to wait 10 days before starting work because of the appeal/permit issuance process.

Case 1509: James and Tara Patson requested reconstruction of a damaged bulkhead and a 164-foot riprap revetment on Maddox Creek. Staff reported estimated impacts including up to 890 square feet of non-vegetated wetland encroachment and subaqueous-bottom impacts. The agent described repairing a 29-foot section of bulkhead and bringing riprap up to the top of higher sections. The board approved the application for a three-year permit; applicants were told to wait 10 days before beginning construction and that a marine-resources permit would be required for subaqueous work.

Case 1510: David and Kristen Smith sought approval to repair a damaged bulkhead and add about 116 feet of riprap revetment. The agent said the proposal would straighten and stabilize a leaning bulkhead and place heavier class‑2 stone where needed. The permit was approved for three years by unanimous roll call.

Case 1511: Linte Properties (Everett Welsh) proposed a 556-foot revetment on Jackson Creek to address areas undercut up to 3 feet and to stabilize a mostly wooded bank. The agent explained why a living shoreline was not feasible (north-facing shading and the presence of a private oyster-ground lease) and said the plan would preserve most trees while stabilizing the undercut sections. Staff reported about 570 square feet of non-vegetated wetland encroachment. The board voted to approve the three-year permit.

Case 1512: James and Sylvia Barnes proposed a 92-foot riprap revetment, a 38-foot riprap sill, 10 cubic yards of beach nourishment and 140 square feet of wetland vegetation planting (spartina/cordgrass). The agent described removing existing stone, installing filter cloth, placing additional armor stone and planting cordgrass behind a sill to protect remnant marsh. The board approved the permit for three years.

Board questions and technical notes

A recurring question from a board member concerned the board’s historical preference for riprap rather than replacing bulkheads, and whether VIMS review had been requested. An agency official said the cases at the meeting had not been sent to VIMS and reiterated that VIMS often recommends against bulkheads except where channels are narrow, or that some form of living shoreline be included when feasible. The agents said many of the sites are in higher‑energy or constrained settings where a living shoreline would not function or would impinge on oyster leases.

Next steps

All approved applicants were instructed to wait 10 days before beginning construction because of the permit/appeal (PO) process and to secure any additional marine-resources permits needed for subaqueous work. The board adjourned at the close of the meeting.

Quotes

"We did not send this particular case to VIMS," an agency official said when asked about external technical review.

"It's not gonna have any further encroachment channel work than what's there now," Craig Palovinski, the agent for several applicants, said describing the proposed in‑kind bulkhead replacements and riprap refurbishments.

Ending

The Wetlands Board approved the five permits and closed the meeting after a short discussion about site signage and routine procedural matters. Permit holders were reminded of the 10‑day waiting period before starting construction.